Son, you got a panty on your head.

I was reading about "Raising Arizona" so I thought I'd look up the trailer.

Comforting

I was getting fairly disillusioned with film reviews, but I've found comfort in this quote:

"Criticism loses its edge if it avoids evaluation, though evaluation dissipates its energy if it becomes dogmatic." --Rob White, editor of Film Quarterly.

Montage? You mean collage, right?

#9 Is that a tire?

Les Vacances de Monsieur Hulot (1953)

This film is absurdly funny. I am big fan of funny writing, but “Mr. Hulot’s Holiday” reminds me that films can be visually funny. I would try to describe some of the visual puns, but the images are funny simply because you can’t show how that would happen with words--similar to Charlie Chaplin films.

After the film finished I realized that there was very little dialogue. Jacques Tati, the director, relizes heavily on the slapstick humor. The story, which is merely the vehical to give us the comic situations, revolves around a small beach community of seasonal vacationers. There are no profound realizations about the characters or human nature, but that isn’t the point. It reminds me of the Goofy how-to shorts. We’re not really suppose to be learning how to fish. The how-to simply allows for Goofy to get into trouble by catching himself or a tree that acts as a slingshot sending flying through the air. We’re meant to simply enjoy the visual satire, it’s like a vacation from traditional films. Consider this the anti-thesis to “Juno” where all the laughs come from witty dialogue.

We need to bring back witty visual jokes. Writers have had to much fun, time for some one else to crack the jokes.

#8 What's in the bag?

Run Lola Run 1998


Many times a day I think to my self “ If only I had done ______.” I know--really hope-- that I am not the only one constantly questioning their actions. Movies tend to deal with “what if” plots because cinema can allow a glimpse at the possibilities of that answer through editing and other temporal distortions. “Back to the Future”, “Sliding Doors”, “Rashomon”, “Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind” to name a few. The cause and effect of our choices is similar to a binary search tree (to borrow a computer science term). Decision A leads to consequence B or C that has a two sets of possible events that weren’t available if we hadn’t made choice A. This structure is reductive, of course, but there is comfort in being able to narrow the course of your life to a single moment. “Two roads diverge in a yellow wood.”

“Run Lola Run” is a remarkable example of the seemingly subtle choices characters make effecting the rest of the narrative. It seems that Tom Tywker, the director and writer, couldn’t decide which story line he wanted to make make. Instead of deciding he, as the all powerful author, presents us three “what ifs” of the same situation, all with different endings.

In the beginning Lola receives a phone call from her boyfriend who casualy, at first, mentions he lost a bag filled with 100,000 marks. We see, through parallel editing, that bag, which is left on a subway car bench, is picked up by a homeless man( It really looks like that Geico Caveman makes a came.) The money isn’t his, but mobsters-- and mobsters never like to lose money they have rightfully stolen. Lola has 20 minutes to find a solution to legally attain the large amount of money before her boyfriend robs a grocery store to appease the mobsters. She literally runs to her father, a banker, and pleads for the money. He doesn’t give her the money and Lola doesn’t arrive in time to stop the robbery, which leads to her being shot by policemen responding to the robbery. Wait. What if she didn’t______. Rewind, start over try again. And we do. The same plot, sort of. There are subtle difference in the beginning that seem to snowball into larger effects as the second telling wears on. There is a little more hope that Lola will succeed this time, but events still conspire to kill someone. Game over. Go directly to Jail. Insert quarter for one more life to play. Go.

The third act, or telling, reveals the complexity of timing in movies and life. The same characters we see in the first two version are still in the second one and the hold ups that stopped them are removed and we see the difference it makes. Each interaction with Lola invokes a different reaction from them and a quick montage of what happens to them next. The final version is surprisingly complex, and more suspenseful even though we know what will generally happen. Watching this third take reminded me of Jeff Goldbloom in Jurassic Park. Ian Malcolm tries to describe Chaos Theory. He uses the a water drop on Dr. Sattler’s hand. He drops the water twice wielding two completely different results. Basically if we try an experiment, story, test --even with the same variables-- we’re going to have different results. “Back to the Future” sort of touched on this idea because Marty could never restore history or his life to the way the were pre-Flux Capacitor.

As the plot continues during narrative films the audience is given certain cues that leads us to a plausible ending. Audiences feel that these clues are contracts between them and the director, but sometimes this contract is broken and you hear moans about surprise endings or not-ending endings. Should there be a neat wrap up, or would audiences be content if something unexpected happened? More than likely they wouldn’t be, which is what you hear bemoans of predictable endings. “Run Lola Run” shows how you can manipulate certain story details to achieve the desired ending. So does endings reflect the desire of the director, or his belief of what the audience wants/needs/demands?

I have to mention the frenetic moving of the people and camera in this film. The film title suggests running, and Lola runs for most of the movie. The camera fluidly moves with her in a vain attempt to frame her in a traditional shot. When there is to much going on or people running towards each-other Tykwer utilizes a split screen, which, in the case, is really effective. I don’t like this term: “MTV style editing” because it adds a connotation of being unartistic-- sorry Lauren, Heidi, Whitney and Audrina. Yes the editing is fast and set to bumping techno, but it is also very artistic and stylized. It’s not fast for the sake of being fast.

If I was writing this as a review for the paper I would say something like, "Run out and get this movie," but I'll leave that decision up to you. You can run, walk, or drive.

Late night, hillarity ensued.

Every Thursday I have two film classes, which wouldn't be that unbearable, except that each class is four hours long. It makes for a long day. During Historiography--my second class of the day--we we're watching a smorgasbord of pre-1910 films. Surprisingly great, and some what provocative....Anyways, around 9: 30 we watched this short clip, which demonstrates film's original goal to simply show. Narrative be damned!



After this clip, in the fashion of early nickelodeons goers, a classmate yelled out, "was that Sarah Palin?" It's going to be a good semester.

#7 Am I on my feet?

On the Waterfront 1954

“On The Waterfront” is one of those movies that, for some reason or other, is always mentioned during any film discussion. Someone might mention Elia Kazan, the director, or the stars Marlon Brando and Eva Maria Saint. Many reasons could bring this film up in conversation, and rightly so. Pauline Kael, the cantankerous film critic, i.e. bitch--I’m really a huge fan-- said, “it’s a near-great film,” which is a pretty strong endorsement, from her.

Kazan takes the camera on location to the waterfront jungles of New Jersey for a gritty independent film feel. This is the world of the pre-Godfather mob, union run rackets, which are worse because they don’t protect their own but feed of the misery of the workers. At least Don Corleone helped his amici when they came to him.

Terry Malloy(Brando) is muscle for hire. He is an ex-prize fighter whose brother is the right hand man of the union president of the dock workers 347, Johnny Friendly. Every time a ship comes docks the men show up for a slim chance to do back breaking work. Mostly they aren’t picked because Johnny Friendly says who is picked and who isn’t. Terry is comfortable and protected which makes staying a hired man a high priority, but he is jolted into self reflection when he sets a guy who might talk up to be pushed off a building. The sister, Edie Doyle (Saint) runs around the dock yard trying to figure out the culprit, but runs into the D&D syndrome that plagues tight knit neighborhoods. D&D is Deaf and Dumb, which is the union fee that is required of all workers.

“On The Waterfront” is a easily accessible film because of the stellar acting, but there are many subtle meanings. Ultimately this film is about cages. Pigeons may just seem like a neighborhood hobby, but they are reflective of the dock workers under control of the union. Terry shows off his prize pigeon to Edie telling her that no other birds mess with him because he fights them off. He is kind of the roost. The pigeon becomes symbolic of Terry who will fight against the caging effect of the union. The movie is shoot in a very cagey effect so we fill what Terry is filling. Characters are always framed by vertical objects similar to noir stylistic. Even outside the characters have no where to go. The camera’s freedom mocks the audience and characters as it gazes on Terry, or any of the dock workers in the claustrophobic situation.

Johnny Friendly stoles keep in him power because they will rough up any trouble makers, but if the masses join together the few and Friendly and his stoles would be out of power. Everyone is scared for their safety. Apparently, people value their heads with out bash marks.

This film lives up to its reputation, and I understand why it won 8 Oscars. I can’t wait to bring it up in my next film conversation.

#6 The teddy bear has been compromised

The Nanny Diaries (2007)

A strange one to start back with, but I just watched "The Nanny Diaries." The movie had been sitting in my queue for the longest time because I am a Scarlett Johansson fan, but I am quickly realizing, sadly, that she isn't a very good actress. Her idea of acting is to look mopey and avoid eye contact, which will only work for so long.

The movie, which is adapted from the "popular" book of the same title--and reeks of The Devil Wears Prada-- follows Annie Braddock's summer immediately after college graduation. She graduated with a finance degree and a minor in anthropology, because they obviously go so well together. Annie, at an interview for Goldman Sacs, is asked the seemingly simple question who Annie Braddock is, which, of course, she can’t answer. The movie follows the typical post college searching for meaning in your life, or at least a job phase; though it doesn't reach the successful searching of Benjamin Braddock from The Graduate. I don't think the similar last names is chance.

Annie avoids anything her future might have to offer by taking the "easy way" out, a nanny job. The audience all sees the train-wreck that is about to happen as Annie's voice over narration of the first day on the job begins "I didn't really have any experience." There are some funny lines along the way, and some heart wrenching moments, but the movie tries to hard to bring down high living upper eastsiders. Maybe if we don't pay them any attention they will go away. The movie goes down the typical checklist of the ubber rich falts. It comes to the point that you begin to wonder is there something personal going on here? I’m not defending them, but you don’t have to have a six figure salary to neglect your child. It might even make it easier when you don’t have a job. Bad parenting needs to be the focus of the movies's scorn, which it becomes roundabouly at the end, but the story focus way to much on the over privileged lifestyle to make an application of lessons learned to those on other financial rungs all but impossible

The ending spends a lot of time wrapping up things how they should be, but end up further from the truth, or, at least, what we think should happen. I know happy endings are somewhat hard to believe, but didn't someone wind up unhappy? We don’t even see if the husband got his dues, but I guess we have to be satisfied that Annie has moved on, and so has everyone else to nothing that is particular important. Next.

The Final

All good things come in trilogies, right? Well here is my third and final I'm-going-to-start-writing-again writing. I know, you're thinking: "Chris we've read this before and you've broken our hearts." Well I am sorry, truly. I have been busy watching movies, finally starting class, and my job at the film archive so maybe I will have some interesting flicks to post about shortly (Hint: silent Hitchcock).

Cheers

Oh, here is what I have watched since my last list:
The Caine Mutiny
Before The Nickelodeon
The Pleasure Garden
Rushmore
Good Will Hunting
Dazed and Confused
Billy Madison
The Man Who Wasn't There
LA Confidential
And the first season of 30 Rock

Confession

Well, I have been watching movies, but the Catch-22 of it is I've been watching to many movies to sit down and write about them. That and we're still exploring New York and the surrounding areas. I plan on watching more movies this week, but it is also orientation week. I plan on trying to squeeze in some time to write, but, for now, I'll just leave a list of movies I have watched since moving into the new apt:

Do the Right Thing
French Kiss
A Brief Encounter
4 months, 3 weeks, 2 days
Delicatessen
200 Cigarettes
Fay Grim
Umberto D
Meet Bill
Annie Hall
The Original Super Man (In Bryant Park)
La Nuit Americaine
Living in Oblivion
Secretary
Searching for Paradise
American Teen
The Trouble with Harry
Yojimbo
A Fistful of Dollars

See. I've been busy, but now the hard part, which is why I started this blog...write about them!

Cranking back up

Alright, sorry. Things have been busy with the move and getting settled in Brooklyn--the Olypics have been taking up a good it of time too. Good news: TV set, Netflix delivering, and we now have a couch. That means I get to start watching movies again, and, therefore, get to start blogging again. Updates to follow. (The picture is of a theatre near my apartment.)

#5 I'll bet you write beautiful letters.

Desk Set (1957)

I know. I just railed against typical romantic comedies in an earlier post, but for some reason I love the simplicity and typical romanticism of “Desk Set.“ (I think the real question should be “Chris why are you watching so many girly movies?”) I started watching “Desk Set” because I love Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn as a couple. They are the original Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks--sweet without being saccharine.

Richard Sumner (Tracy) is a efficiency expert brought in by Federal Broadcast Company to make their research department more modern. Sumner is the inventor of EMERAC, which is a nod to the original thinking machine the ENIAC. Bunny Wilson (Hepburn) is in charge of the research department—see any conflict a brewing? (Similar to the conflicts-of-interest-but-I’ll-love-you-anyway that made “You’ve got Mail” interesting.)

Hepburn really brings a sense of back off to the character. Her quick wit and incredible intelligence easily makes her a force to reckoned with, and to be admired, but be careful because she'll bite. Tracy plays the, of course, clueless man that realizes that he can love a woman more than a computer, but Bunny has been seeing a guy for seven-ish years, but he isn’t Mr. Right. Yet she still waits on him, but notices Sumner...and so forth.

The plot is just a vehicle so we can see the chemistry between Tracy and Hepburn, which was shared off screen as well--apparently. The comedy and issue of a machine replacing human workers are just bonuses. The latter is even more poignant in the midst of our current financial nightmare. Even if jobs come back to American soil, whose to say they wouldn't be replaced by machines or that companies could find a bank willing to back a loan?

I’ll go ahead and spoil this: the machine is no match for Hepburn, but I would still place a bet on her today.

#4 Want to know how I got these scars?

(No Spoilers)

I am choosing to be brief not because I am sleepy, but my viewing was a fortunate one with a great crowd and the movie was what it should have been for me, it might not be for you and I don't want my words to ruin what it could be...


Be prepared to be uncomfortable: you aren't safe. It's not simply about people being two faced or masked, but where the coin lands. If it does. There are loud performances, but watch for those loud gestures from the people you wouldn't think--who do what should have been done ten minutes ago. People will become what is needed, despite what that means.

No reward is worth this...

No time for a proper blog today. After work I made time to I watch "Hidden Fortress", which, if you know anything about Akira Kurosawa, was a long, but great movie. And I’m about to head to the Buford Imax because my friend Adam scored tickets to a sneak preview of “The Dark Knight.” Updates on both movies tomorrow. I have a feeling I will be pondering about homages, Star Wars, heroes and performances.

I’ll leave you with this clip:

#3 10 Questions for the Dali Lama

10 questions for the Dalai Lama (2006)

Rick Ray narrates, directs, edits and takes up most of the screen time in the 2006 documentary “10 questions for the Dali Lama.” Normally the producer of the shows, Mr Ray is given the opportunity to interview the 14th Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso, but the catch is he is only granted 10 questions. I can’t imagine sitting down in front of such an intellectual and spiritual man and only being allowed to ask 10 questions. Rick Hill is no fool and weaves the 10 questions in and out of a pseudo-presentation of the history of the Buddhist Culture.

I have nothing but respect for the Dalai Lama. I’ve read some of his books, but I had never understood the amount of destruction China has brought on the Buddhist culture. It really is cultural genocide. A simple digital camera captures the aftermath of the ongoing “invasion.”

China will be putting on its best efforts to control the impending demonstrations that will plague the upcoming Olympics in Beijing. China’s ability to change history to their versions seems like the plot Orwell’s 1984. China even censored Google! Google!

I believe we can learn a lot from the Dalai Lama’s patience and forgiveness with a country that has killed over a million of his countrymen and destroyed their history. Hill makes it very clear that no one has come to the rescue of Tibet because there are no economic interests to, but everyone wants to be in business with China.

The images of the exiled and impoverished people are shot beautifully, and speak louder than Mr. Ray’s monotonous reading of his own, at times, poignant thoughts of the journey. Mr. Ray’s motivation is in the right place, but he is simply a boring narrator. I can’t think of a better job for Morgan Freeman. Even Richard Gere!

The real star of the movie is Tinzin Gyatzo’s personality. He always has a huge smile on his face, and is easy to crack his charming laugh. The documentary show several of the Dalai Lama’s appearances around the world, and everywhere he goes he is genuinely interested in the people he meets. I really appreciate documentaries that get those behind-the-scenes looks at a person’s life AND don’t reveal huge dark secrets. The peering into His Holiness’s private life only makes him more human. He was 15 when China invaded Tibet and he and his family were forced to flee into exile. I was worried about a car at 15, while he was worried about the future of his family and nation. I can’t even imagine the burden he had to deal with.

I would like to say, “run out and watch this film,” but it’s not the film I want you to see. It’s the focus of the film, the Dalai Lama. If anything just read up on the situation. This film is the “end” of Ray’s journey, but it should really be the beginning of all of ours.

#2 Muppets from Space

News flash: Gonzo is, weird is too strong of a word for such a lovable guy, unique. The long beaked character from the mind of Jim Henson is the focus of “Muppets from Space,” though everyone is present: Kermit, Piggy, the Swedish Chef, Rizzo, and Pepe the Prawn. That is the problem. A slow panning shot of the living room photo-shelf shows that everyone, even Miss Piggy, has a family. Everyone except Gonzo, who has nightmares that Noah won’t let him on the Ark because there is only one of him in the world. Isn’t this the perfect metaphor for conformity? If you don’t fit in you better have brought an umbrella. Gonzo spends the movie trying to find his family, and I'll give you one guess where they are from.

The Muppets might be childish, but it is still side-splittingly clever. “Muppets from Space” makes comedy seem easy, but don’t be mistaken. Only a rat with a Brooklyn accent can get laughs from smart-ass comments like, “Terrible” to the question “No nostrils. How do you [Gonzo] smell?” from a chubby Jeffrey Tambor playing the head of a secret government agency.

This spoof style movie shies from being overtly in your face like the Naked Gun series and Date Movie. (Keep an eye out for the “Independence Day” reference, and countless other films.) The balance of insanity and reality is blurred enough to make a bear working for the government plausible.

Surprisingly, realism is derived from the lack of computer graphics. The Henson studio was still showing its mastery of miniatures, which feel more real because they are actually tangible. Think of “Empire Strikes Back” compared to “The Phantom Menace.” I’m still amazed at how real the former looks. We need to bring back miniatures to the cinemas.

Basically, you can never go wrong with a Muppet movie. It’s not a French new wave film, but it is actually quite deep on several levels. Or you could simply stay on the ground level and enjoy the laughs. I still have fond memories of going to see “A Muppets Christmas Carol” at a theater when I was 8. The Muppet movies are honest enough, and provide enough characters, literally, to identify with through humor or even sympathy. I became so involved in "Muppets from Space" that when the credits rolled I was mad because I realized there are several things missing in my life:

• Not only do I not have a sound track in my live, but even if I did it would never have the great 70’s music this movie did.

• I’ve never had a suit-wearing bear as a co-worker

• I need to hire a live-in, Swedish Chef.

# 1 A Little Romance

A Little Romance (1979)

"A Little Romance" was not my first choice of films for a Thursday night, but after watching it, realizing I enjoyed it immensely, I questioned why I was so reticent. Maybe because it was under the genre of "Romantic Comedy?" Yes, but why did this preclude me from, at the very lest, acting interested in it? Lately, movies such as: “50 First Dates”, “27 Dresses”, “What Happens in Vegas” have left guy viewers, and ladies, with a bad taste in their mouths. The cliché of the girl dragging her guy to romantic movies has somehow became a horrible nightmare instead of a charming joke. Why can’t guys be dragged to movies like “The Apartment” or “His Girl Friday?” After a while we would probably be running to these movies.

The new installments of romance are just too predictably safe, as much as it is saying that about them. The guy and the girl always get together. No matter what! Pixar couldn’t even escape this in “Wall-E.” Even if there is any doubt, the final few minutes of a movie will magically produce a happy ending to the audience that, apparently, requires it. Classic movies keep you guessing if two would be lovers will wind up together-- “Casablanca.” The other thing that seems so illogical about these new romantic movies is that the characters have been in bad relationships before, usually more than a few, but they still have that child like hope that there is a prince charming or Cinderella out there for them. Really? In reality that person would have settled for a wicked stepsister or, if really desperate, one of those house mice. Thanks eHarmony. This maybe-this-time syndrome is the opiate to the dating unfortunate, but does it make sense for the whole of movie going audiences? Why can’t we be offered endings like “Once?”

George Roy Hill, director of “A Little Romance,” avoids a lot of these problems by casting two children as the leads. Brilliant! When Daniel and Lauren meet for the first time it is believable that she starts to fall for him--but not really fall, it seems more like playtime. A 20 something woman, today, who has had years of pick up lines thrown at her would more than likely hurl when presented with “Call me Bogey. Why? Because they belong together,” which is what Daniel says to Lauren's on their first meeting. Lauren, Diane Lane in her first role, finds this charming because she has never been given so much attention, and there are really no strings attached--they are minors. The following rendezvous works because they are, essentially, on a play date, which are what real dates should be like. To take off some of the romantic comedy edge, Hill weaves in elements of slapstick through the veteran actor Laurence Olivier whose greatly need humor provides humor not derived from the relationship between Lauren and Daniel.

At first this film seems to have an unresolved issue with classic movies. A hack director in the movie is the constant butt of jokes because he tries too hard--maybe a little autobiography from Hill? No, Daniel is a nascent cinephile that could be a younger Hill. Daniel may seem every movie that he can, but he still has discerning taste, especially when it comes to idolizing actors like Humphrey Bogart and Paul Newman. I thought this was just French snobbery showing its preference for the classics, but Hill directed most of the movies that are clipped in “A Little Romance”. Is this hubris, bragging, or maybe just a nudge to revisit some classics like “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid?” I think the later, but what do I know? “I can’t swim,” but I took the plunge on this movie and survived...

Well, the summer of '08 was suppose to be my great catching up time with movies before I started a masters in Cinema Studies this fall, but getting married, working, and moving sort of got in the way. I could watch a movie here and there, but it was sporadic, at best. When I did watch a movie, just to watch it, I sort of felt like cheating. Does a "film snob" really just watch movies? I knew that I needed to keep a film journal since I was no longer writing my column, which I tried to keep one, but if you don't show it to anyone there is no accountability. Just guilt.

So internet, get ready for my humble thoughts on the films I will be watching over the next few years (hopefully a longer time).

Some rules, more for my part.
Post have to be at least 100 words.
I can't go 4 days past a movie viewing with out posting.
GRAMMAR, GRAMMAR, GRAMMAR. Humph, cough. Yea I have a problem that needs to be worked on. Nothing like embarrassing yourself in front of other because you don't know the difference between to and too.